The most asked question about baseball and the Hall of Fame is how the skill level of MLB changes from era to era. Quite frankly, nobody has been able to come to any conclusive evidence on the subject, and nobody probably ever will. However, there are a lot of factors that have affected the quality of play in a number of different ways, in favor of old over new or vice versa. Let's take a look.
For example, the entire NL batted .303 in 1930, while the AL batted a meager .237 in 1968 (not to compare different leagues, but different time periods). Usually, batting average is quite incremental, but that is quite a difference. There are three explanations for this - either the hitters were better in 1930 than they were in 1968; the pitchers were better in 1968 than they were in 1930; or there was some outside factor affecting the outcome of the batting averages. Which one was truly dominant, we'll never know.
When evaluating this question, I tend not to think about the quality of play as much as the quality of the players. I will explain factors that might explain why the whole MLB "experience" changes from era to era, why, and how it would affect whether a player performs at his full potential.
There are a lot of advantages today that might make it easier for Major Leaguers to play better than they did a century ago. The ballparks, bullpens, gloves, catchers' gear, increased usage of relief pitchers, and the DH are changes that have made baseball easier for many players. The DH's never have to do anything but hit, and AL pitchers never have to worry about hitting, giving them more time to focus on mastering their craft - pitching. (Generally, AL pitchers from 1973, when the DH was introduced, through 1997, when interleague play began, faced better hitters than NL pitchers as a whole.) Starters have an easier time with five man starting rotations and relievers who save the strain on their arms. If Big League parks had padded walls like they do today back in the 1940’s, Pete Reiser probably would have been a Hall of Famer (for those of you who are unfamiliar with Pistol Pete, he was an incredible talent whose career was ruined by many impacts with concrete outfield walls, and he was often carted off the field). Up until the 1950's, teams traveled by train instead of by plane, making for a rougher journey. I think that the Majors today offer the best environment for a man to play at his best.
This is to say nothing of what the old timers had to endure that modern Major Leaguers don't. First of all, baseball was a job back then. The players had to deal with the stress of making a living, and often worked during the offseason. Nowadays, the salaries are so ridiculous that 23 year old Juan Soto could never work again and be rich for the rest of his life. Additionally, if a player got injured, there were no fancy surgeries to save them. You probably know a bit about Civil War era surgery - well, the Major Leagues set up shop less than a decade after the end of the Civil War, so an injury that would today only require a simple surgery would end the careers of most 19th century players. Additionally, you always played, even if you were sore. Nobody had any "off days" when they just sat on the bench and enjoyed the show. None of that malarkey. Another interesting factor is the fact that, if a ball went out of play, umpires would give the pitcher a new one, and before 1920, he was supposed to "dirty it up", spit tobacco juice on it, rub it down with dirt, scratch it, anything they wanted until it was deemed worthy for play. This of course made the ball very hard to see, and after Ray Chapman was beaned in 1920, the rule was quickly discarded, and the spitball was also outlawed (two distinct advantages for batters). Additionally, there were no night games back then, which meant that it got painfully hot, especially with their wool (yes, wool) uniforms. Finally, it wasn't really a game back in the dead ball era - it was your job, and your job was to win. Rookies were despised by veterans whose jobs they were about to take, and opponents were vicious. Many players sharpened their spikes as a ruthless attempt to frighten opposing players (who wants to get ripped to shreds, anyway?). Ty Cobb has a famous quote about this very subject. There was also no dilly-dally that you see so often in today's games, when baserunners laugh and make merry with infielders, who love it just as much. (A quote from Hall of Famer Frank Chance, dated 1910 - "
Many people like to think that today's players are better than they have ever been. They actually make some pretty good arguments - for example, black players weren't allowed in the MLB until 1947; international players were quite uncommon until decades later; the minor league systems are much more finely tuned today than they were before the Cardinals' farm system in the 1940's; national exposure poses an additional pressure on the players. They also criticize 19th century baseball, saying that baseball was just getting started, and that the players didn't really know what they were doing. The first few objections are good and valid arguments, but my opposition to the last objection is this - baseball was one of the biggest businesses in America by the turn of the 20th century, and there were minor leagues at that time, so the players really were the best that the era had to offer and, as an aside, quite good. Just like they do today, fans payed a ton of money to see the best baseball players in the world. Another statement that many modern fans point to are the higher fielding percentages of today and look at them as proof that today's players are superior (at least in the field). If you've ever seen a Big League game, then you'll notice three things: (1), there are more strikeouts than there have ever been; (2), modern gloves are so big that it makes fielding easy (in the 19th century, gloves were designed to let the hand catch the ball, not the glove, and for decades there were no such thing as fielders' gloves); and (3), many players slowly jog down the first base line, giving fielders who bobble the ball much more time to still throw him out. That players can be so lazy is actually evidence to the contrary - that today's players are inferior. If someone tried to pull that garbage in another era, he would probably lose his job. Another fact that modern fans like to point out is that pitchers throw way harder and that breaking balls are more advanced, thus proving that modern pitchers (and the batters who have to deal with them) are superior. These can be explained by the anatomy of the baseball. The seams on the ball protrude further than they used to, allowing for better grips.
Nowadays, I sometimes wonder if the Big Leaguers even know what they’re doing. So many times I see apparent stupidity - baserunners forgetting to retouch bases on a fly ball, infielders going deep into the outfield on popups until the outfielders call them off, the above play, and those ridiculous infield (and outfield) shifts. If anybody knew how to bunt anymore, then this wouldn’t be a problem, but so many pull-happy hitters play along with it and get out. I also personally have a problem with batters swinging for the fences with two strikes, and taking until they get a strike, both common but not universal practices among today’s current crop of players, and these are the primary reasons for the high strikeout totals in recent years.
As time went on, the outside effects on the game always favored hitters. Obviously, we have the banishment of the spitball, but in 1969, the mound was shortened from 15 inches to 10, making for a much straighter pitch that was much easier to hit. Additionally, the baseball, from 1920 onward, got livelier (bouncier). In 1987, they did it again (as teams averaged over a homer a game for the first time in history), and today's baseball's are, in comparison, those 25 cent rubber balls that you get from crank machines. Home runs have soared at an alarming rate in recent years.
The most challenging factor is the strike zone. Here is the link to the chronological history of the strike zone (start reading at 1907).
https://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/strike_zone_rules_history.shtml
This poses a huge challenge, as a larger strike zone is an enormous advantage for pitchers, and the modern strike zone is smaller than ever (essentially, belt to knees as compared with armpits to knees less than 50 years ago). For those players whose careers spanned two strike zones, pitchers can adjust because they have time and control to hit their spots, but batters must have a natural sense of the strike zone. With such radical changes in the zone, it makes batting almost impossible.
From 1993 through 2009, scoring rates were higher than they had been since the 1930's. Of course, engineering with the baseball played a part, as well as expansion (which momentarily waters down the quality of play) and a new strike zone, but a lot of the credit goes to players who injected themselves with anabolic steroids. Those players' muscles grew out until they looked like comic strips, and they hit home runs at a Ruthian pace. Not to point fingers, but many players have admitted to doing the drugs, and they have shared some of the effects with us.In conclusion, I will not have a bias from era to era because there is not enough evidence on either side as to whether Big League play has become better or worse. I also think that the Hall of Fame should represent each era fairly equally in order to teach people more about the whole of baseball history.
No comments:
Post a Comment